BANK OF AMERICA V. NIGERIAN TRAVEL AGENCIES LTD.

• Pages: 162-165

162



NIGERIAN SUPREME COURT CASES [1967] N.S.C.C.

BANK OF AMERICA V. NIGERIAN TRAVEL

AGENCIES LTD.

BANK OF AMERICA (NATIONAL TRUST

AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION)



APPELLANTS

V.

NIGERIAN TRAVEL AGENCIES LIMITED



RESPONDENTS

SUIT NO. SC 407/1965

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

BRETT,



Ag.C.J.N.

COKER,



J.S.C.

LEWIS,



J.S.C.

19th May, 1967

Billsof Exchange - Persons authorised to sign cheques jointly for company - One

signatory procured by other to sign cheques after other's authority withdrawn

- Whether cheque a forgery - Rights of holders in due course defeated by

forgery - Criminal Code Section 464(b) and 465 - Bills of Exchange Act,

section 24.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether a cheque signed after the authority of the signatory had been

withdrawn satisfies the definition of a false document under section 464(b) of

the Criminal Code.

2.

Whether proof of forgery defeats the rights of the 'holder in due course' of a

cheque.

FACTS:

Cockram (C) a Manager and Ajayi (A) a director of the defendant company

were authorised to sign jointly cheques on behalf of the company. The two

cheques in question were dated 27th September 1962 and were signed by C &

A. At 8 a.m. on that day the bank's (plaintiffs') mandate to accept cheques signed

by C on Behalf of the company was withdrawn. At about 9.15 a.m., C. was dis-

missed from the company. At 10.a.m. C, procured A, who had not been told of

C's dismissal to sign the two cheques. It was not established when C. signed them.

The two cheques were made out in Cockram's name and were endorsed by him

to the plaintiff bark and needed by him to purchase travellers cheques. The com-

pany stopped payment and the cheques were dishonoured. The plaintiff sued as

holder in due course of the cheques. In its defence the company relied on sec-

tion 24 of the Bills of Exchange Act, which reads:-

"24. Subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, where a signature on a bill

is forced or placed thereon without the authority of the person whose

signature it purports to be, the forged or unauthorised signature is wholly

unoperative, and no right to retain the bill or give a discharge therefore

or to enforce payment thereof against any party thereto can be acquired

through or under that signature unless the party against whom it is sought

to retain or enforce payment of the bill is precluded from setting up the

forgery or want of authority: provided that nothing in this section shall